https://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Ander&feedformat=atomChangeringing Wiki - User contributions [en-gb]2020-02-22T13:38:57ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.0https://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Compositions_of_the_Decade_2000-2009_-_9_-_Maximus&diff=930Compositions of the Decade 2000-2009 - 9 - Maximus2009-12-23T08:48:48Z<p>Ander: /* 7) “Winking up” – Ander Holroyd / Adam Shepherd – August 2000 */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
===A Review by Philip Earis - continued===<br />
12-bell ringing has enjoyed a strong decade. Single-method ringing has continued its advance towards better methods and better compositions, but the developments – although significant – have often felt more like evolution than revolution. With spliced maximus, though, a real step change for the better has taken place.<br />
<br />
===Bristol cream===<br />
Turning first to single methods, the decade has seen a pleasant trend to more coursing-dominated (ie more musical) methods. Towerbell peals of Bristol over the decade are up 14% to 572, with Bristol becoming the most rung single maximus method for the first time. This is a very welcome development, and a tangible sign of ringing progress. Conductors have responded accordingly, with a plethora of delightful Bristol compositions, almost universally incorporating considerable little-bell music. <br />
<br />
In a demonstration that continual evolution leads to revolution, anecdotally it seems that very few poor Bristol Maximus compositions are rung. I don’t have statistics, but would strongly suspect that at least 90% of rung Bristol Maximus compositions date from the 1990s and present decade.<br />
<br />
Towerbell peals of Yorkshire are up 11% to 471, whilst Cambridge is down 5% to 520. If these trends continue, Yorkshire will overtake Cambridge in the coming decade.<br />
<br />
===Out with the old, in with the new…===<br />
At the dodgy-method part of the spectrum (and sadly it’s a big part), it is of some comfort to see peal numbers in some “nasties” decline. The usual pantomime villain duo of Lyddington and Belvoir have happily dropped off a cliff, with two and one peals rung dis-respectively. The trio of mediocre London-over methods Newgate, Barford and Lyddington have seen a collective 56% drop to 34, whilst peals of Pudsey have had a similar decline.<br />
<br />
There have been a significant number of new methods rung for the first time, many of them rather nice. Interestingly, the good methods have sometimes resulted from new spliced compositions.<br />
<br />
===Spliced surprises===<br />
Indeed, it’s with spliced peals that the statistics become perhaps most striking. Now the total number of towerbell peals of spliced maximus over the decade seems pretty constant at around 340. However, what has been rung in peals of spliced has changed dramatically. <br />
<br />
In the 1990s, 88% of towerbell peals of spliced maximus were in just spliced treble-dodging methods (and most of these just spliced surprise). However, in the 2000s that proportion falls considerably, to around 61%. The number of peals of “mixed” spliced rung (incorporating different treble paths, and so on) is up 187%, and provides some evidence that composers are using the best methods for the job much more frequently, rather than sticking to tired conventions.<br />
<br />
Big advances in spliced composition – led by David Pipe – have driven this transition. A simultaneous boost has been given by the early adoption and active commissioning of new ideas by Tony Kench and his peal band. Cyclic compositions, including 12-parts, have become widespread. New musical concepts, including the mega-tittums coursing effect, have also been developed. <br />
<br />
===Some much done, how much left to do?===<br />
Composing spliced maximus involves a vast search space, meaning predominantly manual input and logic is required for the best results. Computers have played a large part in the much more constrained search spaces of tenors-together single method peals, though, again with SMC32 leading the way. <br />
<br />
Indeed, the nine and a bit courses of tenors-together maximus is sufficiently small that David Hull published complete composition collections for methods like Cambridge over the decade. If people want to do new things here, they’ll have to broaden their horizons. <br />
<br />
It will certainly be very interesting to see how maximus ringing develops. Perhaps discrete blocks of changes, each giving a different musical effect, might be the way forward. We shall see…<br />
<br />
<br />
==1) Classic cyclic 11- and 12-parts using a link method approach – David Pipe – (November 1999 / September 2000 / August 2001)==<br />
I’ve selected the “Pipe Classic” 11-part here in view of its considerable influence on the decade’s ringing and subsequent compositions. Whilst admittedly it was first rung on handbells just before the decade’s start, the first tower-bell performance was in August 2001.<br />
<br />
As with David’s (later) analogous royal peals, the basic idea is a cyclic 11-part construction to deliver both continuous run music and the all-the-work property. The composition has no calls – the link method Slinky is used to move the bells between cyclic parts. <br />
<br />
The main block of the composition has the 2nd and the tenor of that cyclic part (so bells 5 and 6 in the first part) alternately ringing “pivot leads”, ie the leads where they are the pivot bell. The consequent palindromic structure is both very elegant, includes all available leads in the part, and provides a super balance of forward and reverse runs in each part.<br />
<br />
The methods used are very well-chosen: a mix between the established Ariel, Zanussi and Maypole (concentrated Bristol), and the newly-designed Phobos and Deimos, both of which deliver blockbuster leads in the composition. <br />
<br />
Phobos is a tidy l-group method with two fishtails either side of the leadend, and plain hunt on the front six around the half-lead. The music flows well, and includes complete wraps of reverse rounds.<br />
<br />
Deimos is the real music-box regular method of the decade in its application here. It is one of a very small number of good methods on more than six bells that has 3rds made at the half-lead (normally the kiss of death). However, by skilful use of successive plain hunting on three at different places in the row, and adding dodges whenever there are runs, marvellous wall-to-wall music is delivered throughout the chosen leads.<br />
<br />
5016 Spliced Maximus (6m)<br />
234567890ET Slinky Little Treble Place<br />
4523ET90786 Deimos Alliance<br />
534T20E8967 Phobos Surprise<br />
24E5937T608 Maypole Alliance<br />
3T504826E79 Ariel Surprise<br />
E29475638T0 Zanussi Surprise<br />
T038564729E Zanussi Surprise<br />
9E72648503T Ariel Surprise<br />
08T637594E2 Maypole Alliance<br />
796E8204T53 Phobos Surprise<br />
8607T93E524 Deimos Alliance<br />
67890ET2345<br />
11-part<br />
<br />
The decade saw many variations on this plan, which are nicely chronicled on Roddy Horton’s website: [http://rrhorton.net/arkcyclic.html]<br />
<br />
The Pipe Classic composition has methods with odd-numbered pivot bells (3 in Deimos, 5 in Maypole, 7 in Zanussi, 9 in Ariel, 11 in Phobos). As an example of a later variation, John Warboys produced a composition in “red” methods on a very similar plan, but where the methods had even-numbered pivot bells instead.<br />
<br />
Of course, with a cyclic construction there’s a strong case to be made for all 12 bells to be involved in the runs, rather than a fixed treble creating an artificial musical “block” that disrupts the runs. <br />
<br />
As such, David soon developed a 12-part composition on a similar plan. Being a regular double method, the plain lead of Bristol / Maypole in the 11-part structure contains the row eg 234567890ET1 when the 2nd of the part is pivoting. As all other cyclic rotations of this row occur in different parts, and rounds itself is a cyclic rotation of this row, Bristol needs to be replaced with a different method to preserve truth. Here Glazgow Little Surprise is used:<br />
<br />
5040 Spliced Maximus (6m)<br />
1234567890ET<br />
Lynx Diff 64523T10E897<br />
Deimos A 653412ET9078<br />
Phobos S 624T503817E9<br />
Glazgow LS 6315E4927T80<br />
Ariel S 6T204857391E<br />
Zanussi S 61E39574820T<br />
Zanussi S 60T827495E31<br />
Ariel S 6E91738504T2<br />
Glazgow LS 6807T92E4153<br />
Phobos S 697E8103T524<br />
Deimos A 67890ET12345<br />
12-part. 1152 Ariel, Phobos, Zanussi S; 864 Deimos A; 576 Glazgow LS; 144 Lynx Differential. 119 com, atw for all 12 bells. <br />
<br />
==2) The Rise of Mega-tittums – Philip Earis, David Pipe, Philip Saddleton, Rob Lee et al – February 2006==<br />
The possibilities given by all consecutive bells coursing have already been mentioned in the royal article. Suffice to say, the effect becomes better and more pronounced the more bells there are.<br />
<br />
I think I first wrote about the possibilities in this February 2006 message to this list: [http://www.bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/2006-February/001292.html]<br />
<br />
There was quick collaborative progress at developing the concept, developing ways of getting from rounds into all consecutive bells coursing as quickly and elegantly as possible. <br />
<br />
David Pipe soon realised that a sequence of different bobs in the same position could be used for this. A 10ths place bob 'out' turns the coursing order from the plain course 324 to the tittums style 432. This effect is repeated with appropriate bobs every course until mega-tittums is obtained. The effect is then reversed with the inverse bobs in the second half:<br />
<br />
3984 Bristol Maximus<br />
O I 234567890ET<br />
10 342567890ET<br />
18 453627890ET<br />
16 564738290ET<br />
14 675849302ET<br />
14 2345T6E7089<br />
16 234567T8E90<br />
18 23456789T0E<br />
10 234567890ET<br />
The figures refer to the type of bob. O is an 'out' for the tenor, I is an 'in' for the 2nd. Ideal for handbells - all pairs are either in their home position or coursing.<br />
<br />
Philip Saddleton claimed independent discovery of this, but expanded the concept to a peal length by combining this structure with a cyclic 11-part plan. This can be very easily achieved by having a single lead of the method in the mega-tittums coursing order before reversing the transpositions:<br />
<br />
33440 Maypole Alliance (or 6072 Crayford Little Bob)<br />
0 1ET907856423<br />
8 1ET907862534<br />
6 1ET908273645<br />
4 1ET029384756<br />
4 1890E7T62534<br />
6 1890ET273645<br />
8 1890ET234756<br />
0 1890ET234567<br />
11-part<br />
<br />
Rob Lee recognised that mx methods could be useful in the transition between tittums / cyclic courses, and put together a prototype composition:<br />
<br />
5104 Spliced Maximus (4m)<br />
234567890ET Br<br />
795E3T20486 Br<br />
T0E89674523 Av<br />
14 ET089674523 Or<br />
16 0E9T8674523 Av<br />
18 908E7T64523 Or<br />
10 89706E5T423 Br<br />
10 ET029384567 Av<br />
18 0E9T8234567 Li<br />
16 908ET234567 Or<br />
14 890ET234567<br />
11 part.<br />
584 Avon D., Bristol S., Orion S., 352 Littleport Little S., 98 com, atw<br />
<br />
I further incorporated similar ideas in spliced maximus compositions using Pipe 11-part plans, but the real crowning glory of such a fusion would take a number of month’s further development…<br />
<br />
<br />
==3) “Jupiter” cyclic spliced 12-part on a mega-tittums plan – David Pipe – November 2007==<br />
The aim of this composition was to combine the cyclic runs character of the Classic 11- and 12-parts with some mega-tittums music where all consecutive bells are coursing. A 12-part structure is good because it naturally supports both the cyclic runs and the mega-tittums music.<br />
<br />
The first half of each part is aimed at generating runs, whilst the second part efficiently gets to the mega-tittums coursing order, has a principle to exploit this and simultaneously switch to another part, and then reverses the bobs to get back to the part end. <br />
<br />
The beauty of this composition is that both these halves have wonderful custom-designed features – features which may not be immediately apparent.<br />
<br />
1234567890ET<br />
Io LA 142638507T9E<br />
Chaldene LA 13527496E8T0<br />
Leda LA 1648203T5E79<br />
Callisto LA 157392E4T608<br />
Europa LTP 18604T2E3957<br />
Europa LTP 1795E3T20486<br />
Callisto LA 108T6E492735<br />
Leda LA 19E7T5038264<br />
Chaldene LA 1T0E89674523<br />
Io LA 10 bob 1ET907856423<br />
Plain B 18 bob 1ET907862534<br />
Plain B 16 bob 1ET908273645<br />
Amalthea LA 14 bob 1ET029384756<br />
Amalthea LA 1T2E30495867<br />
Ganymede Diff 12 bob 8907E6T54123<br />
Amalthea LA 14 bob 890ET7162534<br />
Amalthea LA 16 bob 890ET1273645<br />
Plain B 18 bob 890ET1234756<br />
Plain B 10 bob 890ET1234567<br />
12-part<br />
<br />
As far as I know, in all previous 12-part maximus compositions the methods used were pretty conventional, ie they weren’t designed for the treble to be involved in the runs as much as possible. The result can be more artificial musical “disruptive breaks” where the treble of the part breaks up runs of other bells.<br />
<br />
Here, however, the methods in the “runny” first half were tailor-made (with a consequent variety of treble paths) to bring out maximal music in all 12 parts, involving the treble in the runs.<br />
<br />
In the mega-tittums second half, an intrinsic problem of the 12-part structure is that the mega-tittums coursing order is the same in each of the parts, leading to potential falseness problems.<br />
<br />
David got round this problem by choosing methods which perhaps counter-intuitively give some runs-style music in the mega-tittums coursing order. The principle chosen here is Ganymede, which has elegant mirror symmetry as well as conventional palindromic symmetry.<br />
<br />
The real crowning glory, though, is the use of Amalthea. Whilst this is a conventional a-group method, it is not really designed to be rung in its plain course; rather, it elegantly gives some really super runs music in the mega-tittums coursing order. The music is generates is wonderfully plentiful, but also incredibly unexpected. Runs of different types, both forward and backwards, frequently just pop out of the ether. The total effect is magical.<br />
<br />
The composition is described more fully (including figures for the leads of Amalthea) in this November 2007 message [http://www.bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/2007-November/001840.html]<br />
<br />
<br />
==4) Single Surprise Maximus (b group)== <br />
*5042 Cambridge - David Hull<br />
*5040 Yorkshire - Mark Davies<br />
<br />
The decade saw further incremental progress with single-method peals, continuing the leap in attitudes started in the 1990s, and mirroring the developments in Royal compositions that have already been discussed.<br />
<br />
Little bells runs continued to be at the fore, and happily misguided ideas such as that all compositions need to contain three whole courses of 65s seem to have been pretty well banished. Calls at 9ths are no longer a novelty, and calls in other places are becoming more commonplace. <br />
<br />
Big bobs are around, and look to be here to stay. This is especially relevant for tenors-together b-group methods like Cambridge and Yorkshire, where the conventional length of 5042 almost invariably sees the peal have a big “duffer” section at the end.<br />
<br />
The two b-group compositions I’ve selected are both on slightly shaky date ground for inclusion, as they were both in fact first rung in the second half of 1999 (though to other methods, I believe)<br />
<br />
David Hull’s Cambridge has a lovely 2-part format, great use of the calls at 9ths (and potentially 8ths), and also well illustrates the musical sacrifices that must be made at the end of a composition to produce a 5042 on the usual plan:<br />
<br />
5042 Cambridge Surprise Maximus (#4)<br />
Composed by: David G Hull<br />
2345678 9 M W 8 H<br />
54362 S S S<br />
24365 SS S SS<br />
63452 S S SS S<br />
34256 SS S 2<br />
52436 S S<br />
(32456) S <br />
Omit 1 SS.<br />
<br />
Mark Davies’ composition, which he calls "The Cosmic Joker", has the very attractive property that every full course contains both little-bell music and 56/65 rollups:<br />
<br />
5088 Yorkshire Surprise Maximus<br />
Mark B Davies<br />
23456 B M W H<br />
45236 - -<br />
54362 x s<br />
23465 s s<br />
43652 s 2 -<br />
43526 x -<br />
64523 x - -<br />
35426 - ss -<br />
23456 -<br />
x = 18<br />
Includes 83 LB5, 165 LB4, 14 567890ET and 10 657890ET<br />
<br />
<br />
==5) Single Surprise Maximus – Bristol==<br />
*5090 #4 – David Hull, October 2003<br />
*5088 – James Holdsworth, September 2008<br />
*5040 #3 – Mark Davies, January 2005<br />
<br />
Bristol is a glorious method at all stages. Unlike something like Yorkshire, though, Bristol’s different leadhead groups at different stages mean than very different strategies need to be used on different numbers of bells to get the most of the method.<br />
<br />
Happily Bristol Maximus doesn’t have the same intrinsic problem as b-group methods, in that a nice and musical snap finish can be achieved without much difficulty. There are literally hundreds of good tenors-together compositions to choose from here, by many composers – a nice illustrative example would be David Hull’s 5090 #4:<br />
<br />
5090 Bristol Maximus (#4)<br />
23456 M W H<br />
64352 - -<br />
45362 2<br />
32564 - S<br />
64523 S -<br />
43526 - 2<br />
(42536) SB<br />
<br />
That said, the method is very flexible. A snap finish isn’t needed or necessarily desirable, and indeed great compositions can even exist in 2-part format. <br />
<br />
I was very attracted to the neat simple 2-part James Holdsworth composition that employs whole courses to great effect. However, the accolades have to be reduced somewhat when you realise that DJP produced something very similar in the previous decade. Why neither of these appears in the RW diary would be a mystery if the diary’s selection criteria involved compositions having notable merit.<br />
<br />
5088 Bristol Surprise Maximus<br />
J W Holdsworth <br />
23456 M 9 W H<br />
----------------------<br />
64352 - -<br />
56342 -<br />
54362 -s<br />
24365 s<br />
----------------------<br />
Repeat<br />
<br />
5088 Bristol Surprise Maximus<br />
DJP<br />
23456 M W H<br />
---------------<br />
64352 1 1 <br />
56342 1 <br />
24365 s 2* <br />
---------------<br />
2 part. 2*=sb.<br />
<br />
For a further example of a composition full of little-bell music, with snappy transitions between sections and limited exposure to duffer courses, the Mark Davies composition below also shows the high bar that tenors together compositions have met:<br />
<br />
5040 Bristol Surprise Maximus (#3)<br />
23456 M H W <br />
(53426) s <br />
54326 s <br />
56423 2 - <br />
24365 - - <br />
(36452) - - 2 <br />
64352 2 <br />
23456 s s <br />
Contains 8 567890ET, 102 LB5, 213 LB4<br />
<br />
<br />
==6) Tenors-together spliced Treble Dodging Maximus (RABS)==<br />
*Alex Byrne – January 2008<br />
*John Warboys – September 2009<br />
<br />
Despite the cyclic developments of the decade, tenors-together spliced in “legacy” methods continues to be rung and developed. There have recently been two simple and very elegant compositions in the four “RABS” methods, Rigel, Avon, Bristol and Strathclyde. <br />
<br />
Both are all-the-work, and manage to achieve this using musical courses (sometimes whole courses) throughout the compositions. <br />
<br />
Alex Byrne’s composition is a lovely palindrome, whilst John Warboys’ uses a two-part structure. Both are well worth closer inspection.<br />
<br />
5184 Spliced TD Maximus (4 methods)<br />
Alex Byrne<br />
M W H <br />
- RRRRRR.<br />
- AAAAAAAAAAA.BBBBBBB<br />
2 - BBB.SAARAAS.SSSSSSSSSSS.<br />
- - - R.RRRRR.R.<br />
2 RBBBB.BBBBR.<br />
- - - RRRRR.R.<br />
2 SSSSSSSSSSS.SAARAAS.BBBBBBB<br />
- - BBB.AAAAAAAAAAA.<br />
<br />
<br />
5088 Spliced TD Maximus (4 methods)<br />
John Warboys<br />
23456 M W H<br />
43526 2 1 AAAAAAAAAAA-SAB-BRS-<br />
25634 1 1 R-BBASSARSS-A<br />
46532 1 1 SRB-RRRRRRRRRRR-<br />
24365 2 1 2 BRRA-A-RB-SRB-A-<br />
34625 2 1 BBBBBBBBBBB-SAB-BRS-<br />
26543 1 1 R-BBASSARSS-A<br />
35642 1 1 SRB-SSSSSSSSSSS-<br />
23456 2 1 2 BRRA-A-RB-SRB-A-<br />
1296 B,R,S; 1200 A. 53 com; atw.<br />
The full courses of R and S can be swapped if desired.<br />
<br />
<br />
==7) “Winking up” – Ander Holroyd / Adam Shepherd – August 2000==<br />
<br />
“Winking up” is a great concept that was briefly visited at the beginning of the decade. There hasn’t been much investigation since, but I’m convinced there could be tantalising possibilities here.<br />
<br />
In short, “winking up” is a way of extending a method on n bells to a method on 2n bells. So far example what bell number 3 does in a minor method defines what bells 5 and 6 do in the related winked up maximus method.<br />
<br />
This doubling lends itself to winked up methods being rung on handbells, but there’s no reason why this has to be the case.<br />
<br />
The classic winking “algorithm” is that:<br />
<br />
*If on the lower stage a bell makes a place, then on the winked up higher stage, the corresponding pair of bells will do a double dodge together.<br />
*If on the lower stage a bell hunts, then on the winked up higher stage the corresponding pair of bells will ring four changes of plain hunt on four.<br />
<br />
The practical consequence is that to wink up from minor to maximus, the following place notations map:<br />
<br />
Minor Winked Up Maximus<br />
- -4589-4589<br />
14 -369-369<br />
36 -470-470<br />
12 -589-589<br />
etc<br />
<br />
This notation may not look the most elegant, but the effect can be really excellent. Pairs of bells stay together, hunting around the change like a double act.<br />
<br />
There has been one winked up peal rung, Wee Willie Winkie Hybrid Maximus – a winked up London Minor – was rung in 2000, and this contained 1680 runs of 4 or more consecutive bells:<br />
<br />
5184 Wee Willie Winkie Hybrid Maximus<br />
Arranged Adam P. Shepherd<br />
34567890ET<br />
----------<br />
- 09TE784365 2<br />
- 567890ET43 1<br />
- 34906587ET 1<br />
- 349078TE65 4<br />
p 87345609TE 1<br />
----------<br />
6 part<br />
Bob = 369-369 for final 589-589<br />
<br />
Wee Willie Winkie Hybrid Maximus:<br />
-470-470-4589-4589-470-470-369-369-4589-4589-234589-589-4589-4589-45670-470-36789-369-4589-4589-369-369<br />
-470-470-36789-369-4589-4589-369-369-470-470-4589-4589-589-589-4589-4589-369-369-470-470-4589-4589<br />
-470-470-589-589 (lh 128734TE6590)<br />
<br />
Further applications can be found, I am sure. At the least, such ringing would make an interesting and very different-sounding block inserted into in a more conventional peal composition. The possibilities could be considerable – winking up cyclic methods, or tittums coursing orders, maybe. Or perhaps winky effects could be used with non-adjacent bells.<br />
<br />
Of course, it’s not just six bell methods that can be winked up. I have vague recollections of ringing winked up Banana Doubles to create a fruity 10 bell method, as well as the memorable experience of winking up twice plain hunt on three, so it turned into a 12-bell method (the double winking was conceptually a bit tricky, at least at first, except for PABS). <br />
<br />
There’s mileage in Shipping Forecast Singles yet…<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 1 - Introduction]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 2 - Doubles]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 3 - Minor]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 4 - Triples]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 5 - Major]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 6 - Caters]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 7 - Royal]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 8 - Cinques]]<br />
[[Category: Composition Reviews]]</div>Anderhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Compositions_of_the_Decade_2000-2009_-_4_-_Triples&diff=929Compositions of the Decade 2000-2009 - 4 - Triples2009-12-23T08:35:10Z<p>Ander: /* 4) 5040 Artistic Triples – Eddie Martin – Rung June 2009 */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
===A Review by Philip Earis - continued===<br />
<br />
The 1990s was a landmark time for triples. The first peal of bobs-only Stedman in 1995 was of course notable, though Andrew Johnson’s 10-part construction later that year was the crowning compositional glory. The decade finished with the 1999 publication of Philip Saddleton’s composition collection for Stedman and Erin triples, summarizing progress to date. It can be seen at http://www.ringing.info/stedman.pdf.<br />
<br />
So what has happened in the past 10 years? Has it been simply a case of tying up a few loose ends? Well, no, not really. Whereas the 1990s saw compositional progress in a few familiar and simple methods, this has been expanded in the past decade, leading to developments across an interesting range of methods.<br />
<br />
A driving motivation remains of producing peals consisting of pure triple changes (ie only using the changes 1,3,5 and 7). It is true that the compositional challenge of bobs-only Erin triples remains unsolved - the likely suspects have invested quite a lot of time into the problem, so far without tangible success. However, a key theme of recent years has been the creation of interesting new triple-change compositions, as we shall see.<br />
<br />
Triples composing is arguably the most mathematically-intense stage. Compositions are almost exclusively based around 5040 change extents – there is no room for the selectivity of higher stages, nor typically the flexibility offered by multi-extent blocks at lower stages. Things have to work for a good reason, and hence beauty and elegance are often evident.<br />
<br />
The innovative new compositions I have selected below have come from a fairly small community of composers. The formidable triples-ringing strength of the Birmingham band has been very evident, and indeed a driver for many of the compositional developments.<br />
<br />
==1) Quick Six Triples – Philip Saddleton – Composition unrung (method first rung December 2004)==<br />
<br />
“Quick six” triples, as the name suggests, has 30-change divisions consisting of quick sixes. It was the winning touch in the “Triples Eisteddfod” in Birmingham in December 2004.<br />
<br />
The notation is:<br />
3.1.7.1.3.1.3.1.7.1.3.1.3.1.7.1.3.1.3.1.7.1.3.1.3.1.7.1.3.7<br />
<br />
It's a beauty. Philip Saddleton, its creator, regards it “the most straightforward construction” of an extent of triples. And he’s a man who should know.<br />
<br />
5040 Quick Six Triples<br><br />
123456 4 6 7<br />
----------------<br />
415263 - - -<br />
642315 - -<br />
465312 -<br />
514623 - -<br />
256314 - -<br />
524316 -<br />
351264 - - -<br />
632451 - -<br />
361452 -<br />
153624 - -<br />
216453 - -<br />
321546 - -<br />
----------------<br />
Repeat<br />
<br />
In Philip’s words:<br />
<br />
“The coset graph for the Scientific group using these three place notations consists of five hexagons with other links and this Hamiltonian cycle is easily found. The blocks can be linked by replacing two quick sixes (the last two for the composition below) by two slow sixes, traversing the hexagons in reverse, and cunningly joining two blocks without introducing any false rows”<br />
<br />
Who wouldn't love traversing hexagons in reverse? Whilst extremely tidy, my feeling remains that a call only acts on one row, meaning the composition would be better described as spliced.<br />
<br />
In a similar concept, see also compositional choice “Artistic Triples” later in this article.<br />
<br />
''(Correction: Philip Saddleton points out that he "...first produced a composition in the early 1980s - we went for it in Cambridge but lost it after five parts of six. I think that the method was first discovered by John Carter". Eddie Martin adds that "...A.J. Pitman certainly published 5040s of it in the 1920s". So the case for including Quick Six as something innovative seems rather reduced. It still remains unpealed, though.)''<br />
<br />
==2) Titanic Triples – Alan Burbidge – January 2005==<br />
Titanic is sort of Stedman reduced – it consists of one row of right-hunting on three followed by one row of wrong-hunting on three. The notation for a division is simply 7.1.7.3 – this gives a course with two types of “six”.<br />
<br />
The cinques was first pealed in 1987, but the past decade saw the first composition of an extent of Titanic Triples – a tour-de-force 3-part composition by Alan Burbidge, which is reproduced from the St Martin’s Guild website as below.<br />
<br />
''(Correction: Richard Grimmett points out that "Eddie Martin came up with the first composition of Titanic Triples. I failed to call it and asked Alan to come up with something I would cope better with. Hence the composition you included")''<br />
<br />
5040 Titanic Triples<br><br />
1234567 A B C<br />
4352167 - - -<br />
2534167 - B6 -<br />
4315267 - - -<br />
5123467 - - -<br />
3241567 - - -<br />
1423567 - B6 -<br />
3254167 - - -<br />
4523167 - B6 -<br />
3215467 - - -<br />
5142367 - - -<br />
2415367 - B6 -<br />
5134267 - - -<br />
4321567 - - -<br />
1253467 - - -<br />
3542167 - C*<br />
2453167 - B6 -<br />
- B6<br />
3521467 B6* -<br />
1245367 - - -<br />
5432167 - - -<br />
2314567 - - -<br />
3 times<br />
7th unaffected<br />
6th sub observation<br><br />
Can be transposed for 1/2 observations with normal start.<br />
1 unaffected, 2 sub observation<br><br />
Standard<br />
A S8, S13 <br />
B S1, 3, S7, S8, S12<br />
C 3, S5, S6, S7, S10, 12, 13<br><br />
Variations<br />
B6 S1, 3, 6, S7, S8, S12<br />
B6* S3, 6, S7, S8, S12<br />
C* S1, S3, S5, S6, S7, S10, 12, 13<br><br />
- denotes standard course<br><br />
861 calls (255 bobs, 606 singles)<br />
<br />
==3) “In course doubles” Triples - Andrew Johnson – October 2006 / November 2009 (Unrung)==<br />
<br />
Building on his Doubles “composition of the decade”, where he produced a very neat in-course 120 of doubles with each row occurring once at each stroke, Andrew Johnson has extended the concept to produce a lovely true triples extent.<br />
<br />
The triples principle takes the same notation as the doubles, replacing two “5s” in the notation with “7s”. This thus becomes the first triples principle with 24-change divisions, and very nice it is too.<br />
<br />
e.g. 1.3.5.1.3.5.1.3.7.3.5.3.1.3.5.1.3.5.1.3.7.3.1.3<br />
<br />
The principle results in an extent in B-blocks, where a B-block is one of these 120 change courses.<br />
<br />
5040 Unnamed Triples<br><br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0<br />
-------------------<br />
- - - - - - - - |<br />
- - - - - - - - |<br />
- - - - - - - |A<br />
- - - - - - - - |<br />
- - - - - - - - |<br />
- - - - - : |<br />
-------------------<br />
5A<br />
- - - - - - - -<br />
- - - - - - - -<br />
- - - - - - -<br />
- - - s - -<br />
- - - - - - - -<br />
- - - - - - - -<br />
- - - - - s - -<br />
- :<br />
-------------------<br />
method = 1.3.5.1.3.5.1.3.7.3.5.3.1.3.5.1.3.5.1.3.7.3.1.3<br />
bob = 5 replacing 7<br />
single = 345 replacing 7<br />
<br />
5040 (Different) Unnamed Triples<br><br />
2314567 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
2341576 s - - - - - -<br />
6231754 s - - - - - - - - -<br />
4627315 - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
1563427 - - - - - - - - - -<br />
3154627 - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
5642371 - :<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
7564132 - - - - - - - - - - |<br />
2751643 - - - - - - - - - - - - |<br />
4376251 - - - - - - - - - - |A<br />
6432751 - - - - - - - - - - - |<br />
3725614 - : |<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
2314567 5A<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
method = 3.1.7.3.1.5.3.1.3.1.3.5.3.1.7.3.1.5.3.1.3.5.3.5<br />
bob = 5 replacing 7<br />
single = 34567 replacing 7<br />
<br />
In Andrew’s words, “The starts of the second method is chosen so the starts for bells in the plain course is close to Stedman in feel - with quick and slow work. I'm not sure why I chose the starts/rotation of the first - possibly for 46s or 567s in the plain course. 567 singles don't work well as you rapidly run false. The methods are asymmetric so in general you need in-course singles to avoid having to ring methods backwards. If you single in B-blocks then you can have out of course singles (c.f. Grandsire ?)”<br />
<br />
Andrew also feels there’s scope for compositional improvement (principally more consecutive plain leads) – watch this space…<br />
<br />
==4) 5040 Artistic Triples – Eddie Martin – Rung June 2009==<br />
<br />
Eddie’s description of this new pure triples extent tells you all you need to know:<br />
<br />
“To be truly artistic, a method along the lines of 'Scientific Triples' really ought to be able to get 5040 in pure triple changes. What is needed is a direct shunt from one lead block to another, without involving any other lead blocks. I’ve looked at various possibilities & the only one that I can find is to substitute two consecutive quick sixes for two consecutive slow ones. (This will work in ‘Quick six Triples except for being two slow in lieu of two quick!) So I looked for something a bit more challenging than ‘quick six triples’ & came up with the following:<br />
<br />
Plain = 7.1.7.1.7.3.7.3.7.1.3.1.7.3.7.3.1.3.1.3.7.3.1.3.1.3.7.1.7.1 gives 5671234 <br />
x = 7.1.7.1.7.3.7.3.7.1.3.1.7.3.7.1.3.1.3.1.7.1.3.1.3.1.7.1.7.1 gives 5641327<br><br />
5040 Artistic Triples<br><br />
1234567 3 5 6<br />
---------------------<br />
6521347 x x x<br />
3512647 x<br />
5641327 x x<br />
--------------<br />
2563147 x x<br />
1536247 x<br />
5243167 x x<br />
--------------<br />
6125437 x x x<br />
4152637 x<br />
1635427 x x<br />
--------------<br />
2164537 x x<br />
5146237 x<br />
3215467 x x x<br />
---------------------<br />
6423157 x x x<br />
1432657 x<br />
4653127 x x<br />
--------------<br />
2461357 x x<br />
3416257 x<br />
4251367 x x<br />
--------------<br />
6324517 x x x<br />
5342617 x<br />
3614527 x x<br />
--------------<br />
2365417 x x<br />
4356217 x<br />
1234567 x x x<br />
----------------------<br />
<br />
The composition was rung in hand by the Birmingham band in June 2009, building on their prior achievement of ringing the first peal on Scientific in hand the previous November.<br />
<br />
In a development based on Scientific triples on a slightly different tangent, in April 2009 Colin Wyld used Scientific as the starting point for a composition of spliced, adding its reverse (1.7.1.7.1.7.1.5.1.5.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.5.7.1.7.1.5.1.7.1.3.7, “New Scientific”) into the mix.<br />
<br />
Whenever a double (place notation is 347 replacing the final 7ths place) is called there is a change of method and whenever there is a change of method there must be a double. He produced a regular 7-part composition:<br />
<br />
S, 2N, 3S, N, 4S, 2N, 5S, N, 2S, 3N (there is a call at the part end so that the next part can start with Scientific) <br />
Part end 5362714<br />
<br />
He described things more fully at http://www.bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/2009-April/002964.html.<br />
<br />
Intriguing, Colin left the Fermat-esque comment at the end of his post,<br />
<br />
“…I have produced two more compositions based on combinations of 12 lead, 4 lead, 3 lead and 2 lead splices. I haven't worked out the specific arrangements but there is the potential for 40+ methods.<br />
The second has no calls except changes of method and triple changes throughout. I will submit these when I can get the formatting sorted out”<br />
<br />
I am still waiting for these new compositions to appear – they would surely have made this article if published.<br />
<br />
==5) 21-part Stedman Triples - Richard Grimmett – November 2004==<br />
<br />
Richard generated a list of 13778 compositions of Stedman triples that have a 21-part structure. These can be seen at: http://www.smgcbr.org/ringing/composition/stedman7/21part/sted21coll.htm.<br />
<br />
The compositions make use of two similar blocks – one that cyclically rotates through the bells, whilst the other rotates through the rounds -> queens -> tittums transition.<br />
<br />
This idea is very nice, and a direct analogue of the 54-part peals of Caters developed by me and Ander Holroyd in early 2003. In fact, looking at Richard’s website, it looks like Brian Price got there with Stedman triples compositions on this plan even earlier. ''(Addition: Richard Grimmett adds that "Andrew Johnson also has one, published in 7-part format in the stedman collection")''<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, a nice development. The first composition in Richard’s collection, which has a maximum of 3 consecutive calls, is given as an illustrative example:<br />
<br />
5040 Stedman Triples<br />
Contains 351 calls. 231 bobs, 120 singles.<br><br />
2314567 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10<br />
-------------------------------------<br />
2361574 s - - |<br />
4231576 - s - - |A<br />
7264531 - - |<br />
5216374 s - s - - - |<br />
-------------------------------------<br />
7156342 s s - - |<br />
2716354 - s s - - |B<br />
5742316 - - |<br />
3764152 s - s - - - |<br />
-------------------------------------<br />
7431526 5B<br />
5732461 A<br />
6143572 6B<br />
5647123 A<br />
2314567 6B<br />
-------------------------------------<br />
<br />
==6) Innovative original triples – Ander Holroyd (peal attempted 2007)==<br />
<br />
Continuing the theme of Dixonoid compositions, Ander Holroyd has a very clever extent of original triples. All bells plain hunt, with a silent handstroke bob (5 in the notation instead of 7) made after bells 1,2 or 3 lead. This gives a course of 210 changes, with a simple extent resulting from ringing the 24 courses of this. The different courses are obtained with omits and doubles (34567) – the only slight shame being a “pure“ triples extent cannot be produced.<br />
<br />
5040 Triples<br><br />
54 89 1234567<br />
--------------<br />
1 1 7546<br />
D 1327456<br />
2 (1) 4765<br />
--------------<br />
6 part<br />
(1) in parts 1,3,5 only<br />
<br />
(See http://www.math.ubc.ca/~holroyd/comps/o7.txt for more)<br />
<br />
In November 2009 Alan Burbidge produced an extent he describes as “Variable treble Grandsire triples”. Here, the “calls” reset the notation to the beginning of a lead of Grandsire triples, with a new treble.<br />
<br />
Alan has produced both a 10-part and a 7-part composition – as with the Holroyd composition, both of these (and indeed any composition on this plan) need special singles.<br />
<br />
Whilst I’m sure it is interesting to ring, I feel this concept feels a bit more contrived and perhaps lacks the clever design framework of the Holroyd approach. I might be missing something.<br />
<br />
Alan is currently writing an article for the Ringing World about the composition, and so on request I haven’t reproduced the composition in this article.<br />
<br />
==7) Stedman Triples without adjacent calls - Eddie Martin – November 2009==<br />
<br />
I think all rung Stedman triples compositions have adjacent calls – clearly with twin-bob and B-block compositions this is a rather fundamental property.<br />
<br />
Eddie Martin has produced a very simple 10-part composition that avoids adjacent calls completely. It’s arguably the quickest ever Stedman triples composition to learn. The only drawback in the third type of call used, which disrupts the frontwork:<br />
<br />
5040 Stedman Triples<br><br />
Each course called 1s 5s 8s 10s 12*<br />
12* = bob if marked ‘-‘ or places 12567 if marked “x”<br />
2314567<br />
- 2461357<br />
- 2156437<br />
- 2635147<br />
x 6534217<br />
x 5431627<br />
-* 5123467<br />
10 part<br><br />
Ring x instead of bob marked * in parts 3 and 8<br />
<br />
Eddie has produced other examples of compositions without adjacent calls which just have two types of call (though these also have the 12567 call)<br />
<br />
==8) Erin Triples - Eddie Martin - June 2006==<br />
<br />
A very neat 5-part composition of Erin Triples. Whilst there are exact 5- and 10- part compositions of Erin by Andrew Johnson in Philip Saddleton’s 1999 collection, Eddie’s exudes appeal to me, again due to the elegant regularity of the courses<br />
<br />
1234567<br />
----------------------------<br />
3562417 s2 s4 (24 changes)<br />
4356217 A B<br />
2435617 A B<br />
6243517 A B<br />
5624317 A B<br />
4627153 A B*<br />
5123467 A* B<br />
----------------------------<br />
5-part<br><br />
A (84 changes) = 3 5 s7 9 11 s14<br />
A*(72 changes) = 1 3 s5 7 9 s12<br />
B (84 changes) = 5 s7 9 s14<br />
B*(72 changes) = 5 s7 9 s12<br />
<br />
==9) Stedman triples composition that is symmetric about calls – Philip Saddleton – December 2004==<br />
<br />
Another characteristic of Stedman triples (and Stedman at higher stages, but not doubles) is that it is a rare example of method which is not symmetric about the (traditional) calls.<br />
<br />
Philip Saddleton countered my assertion with the argument that pairs of bobs give a symmetrical lead. To produce an extent, he joined twin bob courses with calls at the half-six:<br />
<br />
5040 Stedman Triples (T Thurstans arr T Brook arr PABS)<br><br />
1234567 2 3 4<br />
-----------------<br />
6354127 - - |A<br />
234516 - 2 - |<br />
-----------------<br />
5123467 3A<br />
-----------------<br />
6325417 - - s |B<br />
135246 - 2 - |<br />
-----------------<br />
4-part<br><br />
p=3.1.7.3.1.3.1.3.7.1.3.1<br />
b=3.1.5.3.1.3.1.3.5.1.3.1<br />
s=3.1.7.3.1.347.1.3.7.1.3.1<br />
<br />
==10) 10080 Triples – (Stedman - Rod Pipe – attempted December 2008; Erin – Philip Saddleton – rung August 2005)==<br />
<br />
Rod Pipe has produced a 7-part 10080 of Stedman triples with each row occurring once at handstroke and once at backstroke.<br />
<br />
2314567 6352147 S 7615324 - 2174635 - 4725163 1763245 -<br />
3425167 - 3261547 - 6573142 S 1423756 7541236 S 7314652<br />
3451276 S 3215647 - 6534721 1437265 S 7512436 - 7346152 -<br />
4132567 S 2534176 5462317 4712365 – 5274136 - 3671425 S<br />
4125367 - 2547361 5423671 S 4726153 5243761 3612754<br />
1543267 - 5723416 S 4356217 S 7645231 2357416 S 6237145 S<br />
1536472 5734216 - 4362571 S 7652431 - 2374516 - 6271345 -<br />
5617324 7452316 - 3247615 6273514 3421765 2163745 -<br />
5673124 - 7421563 3276451 S 6235714 - 3417256 S 2134657<br />
6351742 S 4176235 2634751 - 2567341 S 4732156 - 1426357 -<br />
6314527 4162753 S 2645317 2574613 4725361 1465273<br />
3462175 1245637 6521473 5421736 7543216 S 4517632<br />
3427651 1256473 S 6514273 - 5417236 - 7532416 - 4576123 S<br />
4736251 - 2614573 - 5467132 4752163 S 5274316 - 5641732 S<br />
4762351 - 2647135 5473621 4726531 5241763 5617423 S<br />
7245613 6723451 4356712 S 7643215 2157463 - 6752134<br />
7256413 - 6734215 S 4367521 S 7632415 - 2174563 - 6723541<br />
2674513 - 7462315 - 3745612 S 6274351 S 1426735 7365241 -<br />
2645731 S 7421653 3751426 6245713 1463257 7354612<br />
6523417 4175236 7132564 2567431 S 4315672 3471526<br />
6534217 - 4152763 S 7125364 - 2573614 4356127 S 3415726 -<br />
5462371 S 1247563 - 1576243 5321746 3641527 - 4537162 S<br />
5427613 1276435 1562743 - 5317246 - 3612475 4576321<br />
4756213 - 2614735 - 5217643 - 3752146 - 6237154 5643712 S<br />
4762531 S 2643157 5276134 S 3721564 S 6271354 - 5637421 S<br />
7243615 6321475 S 2653741 7136245 2163754 - 6754312 S<br />
7236415 - 6317254 2637514 S 7164352 2137645 S 6741523<br />
2674315 - 3762145 S 6725314 - 1473652 - 1726354 S 7162435<br />
2643751 S 3721645 - 6751243 1436752 - 1763254 - 7124653 S<br />
6325417 7136254 S 7162543 - 4617325 S 7315642 1476235 S<br />
6354217 - 7165342 7124635 4673125 - 7354126 1463752<br />
3461572 1573642 - 1476253 S 6341725 - 3471562 S 4315627<br />
3415672 - 1534726 1465732 6312457 3415762 - 4352176<br />
4537126 5412367 4517623 S 3265174 4536127 3247561<br />
4571362 S 5423167 - 4576132 S 3251674 - 4562371 3276415<br />
5143762 - 4356271 5643721 2136547 S 5247613 2634715 -<br />
5136427 4367512 5632417 2164375 5271436 2647351 S<br />
1652374 3745621 S 6254317 - 1423675 - 2153764 6725413<br />
1623574 - 3756412 S 6241573 1437256 2137564 - 6751234<br />
6315274 - 7631524 2167435 4712356 - 1726345 7 part <br />
<br />
<br />
''(Clarrification: Richard Grimmett point outs that, "The 10,080 of stedman triples by Rod Pipe was composed on 12/06/80". I felt that as the composition hadn't previously been published, and indeed was rung for the first time on 2/12/9 - see http://www.campanophile.co.uk/view.aspx?93313, it qualified it for the scope of the article. Richard subsequently elaborated on the composition, saying "It consists of RWP's No1, and its exact reversal. A part of the original is joined to a part of the reversal by a pair of singles. By joining a part with its reversal you would end up in rounds at the end rather than at a cyclic part-end. But by omitting a pair of sixes with their associated calls (sps) in the reversal the partends are shifted and a full 7 part is realised. Plainly losing 2 sixes per part is not desirable - so in one part alone you single in at the same point an entire plain course (the 7 lots of 2 sixes otherwise missed out)")''<br />
<br />
Philip Saddleton also produced a 10080 of bobs-only Erin Triples that was rung in August 2005<br />
<br />
10080 Erin Triples<br><br />
1234567<br />
-------<br />
4561732 a | |<br />
1365247 b | |<br />
6243517 c |X |<br />
1435267 d | |<br />
6251437 e | |<br />
5432167 c | |<br />
------- |<br />
2165734 a | |A<br />
5361427 b | |<br />
5423176 f | |<br />
4631275 2g | |<br />
5627413 h |Y |<br />
4312576 j | |<br />
3625174 2g | |<br />
4617352 h | |<br />
4512367 k | |<br />
-------<br />
1234567 4A<br />
-------<br />
2154367 Y |B<br />
3451267 X |<br />
-------<br />
1234567 4B<br />
-------<br><br />
a = 2.4.5.8.10.11.12 (12)<br />
b = 1.6.8.9.12 (12)<br />
c = 2.4.5.6.7.9 (9)<br />
d = 2.4.5.6.7 (8)<br />
e = 3.4.5.6.8 (8)<br />
f = 5.6.8 (9)<br />
g = 1.3.4.5.6.8 (9)<br />
h = 1.4.5.7.12 (12)<br />
j = 1.2.3.5.8.9.11 (12)<br />
k = 1.2.3 (5)<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 1 - Introduction]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 2 - Doubles]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 3 - Minor]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 5 - Major]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 6 - Caters]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 7 - Royal]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 8 - Cinques]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 9 - Maximus]]<br />
[[Category: Composition Reviews]]</div>Anderhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Compositions_of_the_Decade_2000-2009_-_6_-_Caters&diff=928Compositions of the Decade 2000-2009 - 6 - Caters2009-12-23T08:27:27Z<p>Ander: /* 1) 54-part Erin Caters – Ander Holroyd – rung May 2003 / November 2004 */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
===A Review by Philip Earis - continued===<br />
<br />
It’s hard to know what to say about Caters. And whilst you could interpret that as I don’t know what I’m saying about Caters, there is some clear evidence suggesting that there isn’t in fact much new to say. The stage is really rather moribund in many regards. Whether a cause, an effect or both, it undoubtedly remains dominated by Stedman and Grandsire.<br />
<br />
You just have to look at some of the key indicators of innovation:<br />
<br />
* There hasn’t been a meaningful long length of Caters since March 1990.<br />
* There have been only 7 new Caters methods rung in the past decade. 6 of these are non-descript simple plain methods. Only one is of note – the cyclic and rotationally symmetric principle Flada, rung in Oxford in 2004. Things like Differentials, hybrids and so on all seems to have passed Caters by completely.<br />
* There has only really been one peal of spliced Caters in the past decade. And the emergence of spliced Caters and Royal has only gone to show it’s not easy to achieve a synergistic effect.<br />
* There has been only one handbell peal in the past five years that wasn’t Stedman or Grandsire. And that was Plain Bob.<br />
<br />
Indeed, looking at peals.co.uk we see that whilst the total number of peals of Caters seems to have gone up around 10% in the past decade, around 98% of 9-bell peals are either Stedman or Grandsire (with Plain Bob, Erin and Double Norwich making up nearly all the rest)<br />
<br />
It almost seems like Caters has turned into a dead zone. It is the stage people ring for a safe peal score or when royal seems a bit tricky, rather than something to be pursued and developed in its own right. This is a great shame, because Caters has so many possibilities and potential.<br />
<br />
===The case for the defence===<br />
The likely defence against my argument of stagnation is that innovation, music, excitement and so on can be obtained within the framework of Grandsire or Stedman. Even leaving aside my personal views on the musical qualities and potential of Stedman (the Irish joke about the traveller seeking directions comes to mind), this seems a bit of a bogus response – you don’t find similar arguments at even-bell stages.<br />
<br />
Grandsire Caters clearly has many advantages, but even simple but attractive related methods like Double Grandsire (1 peal in the past 25 years) don’t seem to be in the canon. <br />
<br />
===Running away===<br />
So what’s been going on in Stedman Caters compositions? Well, the vast majority of compositions still seem to be shuffling deck-chairs on the titanic. You can re-arrange courses of 56s, 65s, so-called “tittums” (3 consecutive bells coursing – I ask you!) until the cows come home, indeed John Hyden has, but the end result is still the same.<br />
<br />
Perhaps I’m being unfair. Caters has not been completely immune from trends on other number. The rounds -> queens transition on 10 bells is glorious, especially in methods with coursing music, and has been exploited in elegant multi-part Caters compositions for the first time: a real highlight of the decade. There remains much more scope for related developments.<br />
<br />
More generally, there have been very welcome moves towards more bespoke compositions, incorporating cyclic music, and so on. Indeed, on the positive side and for the first time in the centuries Stedman has been rung, the little bells haven’t been completely dropped from the musical equation. This must count as progress.<br />
<br />
It’s perhaps a sign of how bad things were in the past that the footnote to Mark Davies’ 2003 composition of 5055 Stedman Caters (no. 2) says, “Believed to be the first performance of a little-bell composition in Stedman's principle”. Any increase of music has got to be a good thing. <br />
<br />
===Call of the wild===<br />
The problem is that Stedman disrupts the coursing order, meaning transitions between musical blocks tend to feel forced, and involve lots of bobs, and even when you get there the effect is fleeting anyway. “Chase the row” is the description I give to some of the complex multi-call compositions. Calls can really disrupt the rhythm of ringing. And whilst you can go 25 minutes in a peal of Surprise Maximus without a call, you’ll be lucky to go 25 seconds in many of the complex bespoke peals of Stedman.<br />
<br />
The progress in Stedman compositions (with parallels in Grandsire) has come from various directions – David Hull, Mark Eccleston, Rob Lee, Mark Davies, and so on. But is still feels to me at times that people are trying to answer the wrong questions, with the wrong method as a tool. <br />
<br />
Mark has been a bit of an evangelist for Caters compositions, especially Grandsire. He invented Flada Caters, and is fizzing with other ideas. In a December 2005 message to the theory list he talked about some of his creations, finishing: “About time some more of these were rung, and not just invented...” I couldn’t agree more.<br />
<br />
<br />
==1) 54-part Erin Caters – Ander Holroyd – rung May 2003 / November 2004==<br />
<br />
This is a fantastic composition in 54-part form, combining a cyclic nine-part structure with the rounds -> queens "magnificent six" transposition, ie:<br />
<br />
1234567890 (rounds)<br />
----------<br />
1357924680 (queens)<br />
1594837260 (reverse tittums)<br />
1987654320 (reverse rounds)<br />
1864297530 (reverse queens)<br />
1627384950 (tittums)<br />
1234567890 (rounds)<br />
<br />
Erin is the ideal method here, as the regular, unbroken coursing means 5 plain sixes of the method takes you straight from rounds to a “backrounds” six, allowing the method to maximise the music whilst reducing the number of calls.<br />
<br />
5022 Erin Caters<br />
123456789<br />
---------<br />
982713456 a<br />
516273849 b<br />
891234567 5c<br />
---------<br />
9-part<br />
<br />
a = 1s.6.9s.10.12s (12)<br />
b = 2.3.4.5.6.8s.9.10 (11)<br />
c = 1s.6s.9s.10.12s.13 (14)<br />
18 ea -1234 -4321 -2345 -5432 -3456 -6543 -4567 -7654 -5678 -8765 -6789 -9876;<br />
18 ea -1357 -2468 -3579; 15 ea -7531 -8642 -9753; 96 -68<br />
<br />
The following variation, the first to be composed and rung, has an even simpler calling at the expense of marginally less music.<br />
<br />
5076 Erin Caters<br />
123456789<br />
---------<br />
738495162 a<br />
975318642 b<br />
198765432 b<br />
615948372 b<br />
468135792 b<br />
345678912 b<br />
---------<br />
9-part<br />
<br />
(a) = s1.s6.s9.10.s12.13 (14 sixes)<br />
(b) = s1.6.s9.10.14.15 (16 sixes)<br />
<br />
==2) Flada Caters – Mark B Davies – May 2004==<br />
This article is meant to focus on compositions more than methods, though it’s the method that is the star of the show here.<br />
<br />
Flada: 3.1.3.1.3.569.1.569.1.5.9.145.9.145.7.9.7.9.7 = 234567891<br />
<br />
The principle - devised by Tom Hinton - combines cyclic leadheads with rotational symmetry to great effect. It was one of a string of great cyclic methods rung near the beginning of the decade.<br />
<br />
The division has 19 changes, leading to the interesting consequence that adjacent divisions are rung on opposite strokes.<br />
<br />
The method is cleverly structured to include reverse runs round the half-division. A cyclic method can’t have “normal” palindromic symmetry (at least, not without being started away from the symmetry point), but can make use of either rotational (eg Anglia Cyclic) or Glide (eg Double Resurrection) symmetry.<br />
<br />
Indeed, somewhat strangely Flada almost resembles a glide-symmetric cyclic method (which automatically includes the property of reverse runs round the half-lead).<br />
<br />
The composition itself is functional, even slightly disappointing in that I don’t think it really maximally exploits the generous opportunities the method provides. It keeps the back bells fixed, missing out on the big reverse-run courses, as well as the tittums / queens transition:<br />
<br />
5130 Flada Caters<br />
<br />
123456 1 2 4 5 9<br />
-----------------<br />
341256 s -<br />
541326 - s 2<br />
145236 - -<br />
415236 s<br />
142536 s s<br />
241356 - 4 -<br />
-----------------<br />
124563 - s s s<br />
415263 s s s<br />
542163 s s s<br />
521436 s s s<br />
245163 s -<br />
524136 s s s<br />
543216 - 4<br />
-----------------<br />
325416 s -<br />
235416 s<br />
235461 s<br />
324561 s s<br />
325461 s<br />
234516 s s s<br />
432156 - -<br />
234165 s s s -<br />
321456 s s s<br />
123456 s s -<br />
-----------------<br />
<br />
<br />
That said, there’s fantastic scope for further examples.<br />
<br />
==3) The emergence of the little bell runs… - Mark Eccleston, David Hull et al. – various==<br />
<br />
As mentioned in the introduction of this article, the welcome shift towards little bell music in Stedman and Grandsire continues. <br />
<br />
No one composition jumps out to my mind as the definitive example of a “composition of the decade” – the cyclic sections in the 2008 composition below are meant to be a typical illustrative example:<br />
<br />
5004 Stedman Caters<br />
Mark R Eccleston <br />
<br />
123456789 <br />
---------<br />
123456798 s9.11-16 (16) <br />
2413 s1.6.s8.s12.16 |<br />
4321 s1.6.s8.s12.16 |<br />
3142 s1.6.s8.s12.16 |<br />
--------- |<br />
123457698 s1.6.s8.s10.s12.16 |<br />
2413 6.8.s10.16.18 |<br />
4321 6.8.s10.16.18 |<br />
3142 6.8.s10.16.18 | <br />
--------- | A<br />
123465789 1.2.3.5.12 (20) |<br />
2413 6.s8.16 |<br />
4321 6.s8.16 |<br />
3142 6.s8.16 |<br />
--------- |<br />
123465879 6.s8.s12.16 |<br />
2413 s4.s9.s14.18.19 (20) |<br />
4321 s4.s9.s14.18.19 (20) |<br />
---------<br />
312987654 s3.s5.6.8.11.s13.15 (16)<br />
3219 y<br />
291876543 x (16)<br />
2198 y<br />
189765432 x (16)<br />
1987 y<br />
978654321 x (16)<br />
9876 y<br />
---------<br />
123457689 s1.3.7-10.12 (12)<br />
---------<br />
132456798 2.4.7-9.11.s13.14 (14)<br />
---------<br />
423165879 A<br />
---------<br />
798123456 3.5.9-11.13.15-19 (20)<br />
7891 z<br />
819234567 x (16)<br />
8912 z<br />
921345678 x (16)<br />
9123 z<br />
132456789 x (16)<br />
1234 z<br />
---------<br />
<br />
x = 6.8.s11.13.14<br />
y = s3.s10.14.s17<br />
z = s3.14<br />
Start with rounds as the last row of a quick six<br />
Contains all near misses; 24 each 56798s, 65789s, 56789s; <br />
6 each 987654s, 876543s, 765432s, 654321s, 123456s, 234567s, 345678s, 456789s.<br />
<br />
''Clarrification: There were also compositions involving similar cyclic transitions shortly before this. One example would be 5050 Stedman Caters composed by Richard Grimmett, rung at St Paul's, Birmingham on 26/2/2007 - http://www.campanophile.co.uk/view.aspx?47667''<br />
<br />
<br />
Addition:'' MBD felt a "defining example of a little-bell Grandsire Caters composition" should also be included here, as it "is probably a better method than Stedman to exhibit the little bells to good effect". I agree entirely, (though without the qualification of the word "probably"), and so am happy to oblige. MBD writes, "David Hull was (I believe) the first to compose little-bell peals in Grandsire, and he has several fantastic peals in this mould...I was inspired by David's example to pursue simpler variants more appropriate to my conducting abilities, and in 2003 produced this effort, which sadly remains unrung. I think it's worthwhile. I have rung most of the courses and transitions in shorter lengths, and they are more wonderful than you might think"''<br />
<br />
5075 Grandsire Caters, comp MBD<br />
<br />
23456789 1 2 3 4 5<br />
-------------------<br />
32654987 - - S<br />
63254978 - S -<br />
-------------------<br />
35462 - - S |<br />
65432 S 6 leads | A<br />
53264 - - S |<br />
43256 S S |<br />
-------------------<br />
34256879 - - -<br />
23456978 - - S<br />
43652 A*<br />
24356 - - S<br />
42356879 - - -<br />
23546 S -<br />
62345978 - - 6 leads<br />
24563 - - S<br />
-------------------<br />
32465879 - - 6 leads |<br />
43265 - - - | B<br />
24365 - - - | <br />
-------------------<br />
34562 A*<br />
34265978 B<br />
-------------------<br />
56432 - - 6 leads<br />
63254879 S - S<br />
-------------------<br />
<br />
Repeat, omitting first two courses.<br />
A* = A with bob for s4<br />
Rounds in last course of final B block<br />
<br />
Contains:<br />
28 courses of little-bell music<br />
22 56/65 course ends<br />
Rollercoaster<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==4) The extent of Grandsire Caters – Philip Saddleton==<br />
I’m cautious about including the example below, because extents of Grandsire Caters were first published in the 19th Century, I believe. Philip’s composition below seems very logical, though, and I think was first published in 2004 (no doubt he’ll tell me if this is not the case).<br />
<br />
Philip described in his inimitable pared-down style how to generate this from first principles in a June 2006 message to this list:<br />
<br />
''These are examples of systems of hunts, the basis of many extents. More generally:<br />
* find a block where a subset of the bells occupy each possible combination of positions (WHWH)<br />
* find a calling that does not disturb this subset, but cycles the remaining bells - this gives an equivalent block for a larger subset (WHWx3)<br />
* repeat as necessary, with a calling that fixes one more bell at each step (WHWx3 sH)''<br />
<br />
362880 Grandsire Caters<br />
<br />
23456789 1 3 4<br />
------------------<br />
43628579 - - s | | |<br />
63847259 - - s | | |<br />
38765429 - - - | | |<br />
87532649 - - - |A | |<br />
57284369 - - s | | |<br />
27456839 - - s | | |<br />
47623589 - - s | | |<br />
------------------ | |<br />
67348259 - - s | |C |<br />
37865429 - - s | | |<br />
78532649 - - - | | |<br />
85274369 - - - |B | |<br />
52486739 - - - | | |E<br />
42653879 - - s | | |<br />
62347589 - - s | | |<br />
------------------ | |<br />
76234 2B | |<br />
43625789 2A | |<br />
------------------ |<br />
63542 C |<br />
------------------ |<br />
57263489 A | |<br />
63572 4B |D |<br />
54263789 A | |<br />
------------------ |<br />
35426 2D |<br />
------------------<br />
25364 3C |F<br />
42536 2D |<br />
------------------<br />
24356 2F<br />
------------------<br />
45326 E |<br />
54236 2F |G<br />
43256 E |<br />
------------------<br />
324 G<br />
------------------<br />
Repeat<br />
<br />
<br />
==5) Spliced Caters (4/5m) – Don Morrison – first rung March 2008==<br />
Perhaps indicating the paucity of source material to select from, I think this (and its sister 4m composition) are probably the only examples of spliced Caters produced in the decade. Even then, the novelty is a bit doubtful – I think Steve Coaker may have come up with something similar in the mid 1990s.<br />
<br />
Anyway, whilst it’s hard to get genuinely excited about this – both the choice of methods, music, and method transitions – there is some interest here. It’s better than a kick in the teeth…<br />
<br />
5,051 Spliced Caters (5m)<br />
Erin<br />
123456789 4 5 6<br />
241397568 (a) <br />
31942 - - |<br />
41923 - 2 - |A<br />
39124 - - |<br />
23914 s - |<br />
14923 A |B<br />
41329 2B <br />
Stedman<br />
413297568 6 8 15 16<br />
214365798 (b)<br />
132465 s -<br />
341265 s -<br />
423165 s -<br />
241365 s s - 3<br />
432165 s -<br />
314265 s -<br />
123465 s - (+ a single at 19)<br />
Double Norwich Court Bob<br />
(123465978) 1 3 5 7<br />
135462978 s s<br />
42365 s 2*<br />
24365 s -<br />
34265 s<br />
43265 s -<br />
32465 s s<br />
63425 s - s<br />
Grandsire<br />
63425978 1 2 3 4<br />
56324 - - s<br />
35624 - - -<br />
43526 - - s<br />
54326 - - -<br />
35426 - - -<br />
63524 - - s<br />
36524879 - - -<br />
43625 - - s<br />
64325 - - -<br />
46523 - - s s<br />
Plain Bob<br />
46523879 W M H<br />
54362 - - 4<br />
24365 - 2+<br />
Round at handstroke eight leads after the final call.<br />
(a) = s1.2.s4.5.6.s8 (8 sixes)<br />
(b) = s1.3.5.6.s10.12.14.17<br />
2* = s -;<br />
4 = s - s -;<br />
2+ = - s.<br />
Bobs in Double Norwich are place notation 3 instead of 5 as the treble hunts from 2 to 1; singles are place notation 345 instead of 5 as the treble hunts from 2 to 1.<br />
<br />
Note on the Double Norwich start: A Stedman single is called at the<br />
very end of the Stedman block (this is indicated above as at 19 in the Stedman, though if Stedman were continuing to be rung after this it would be at 1 in the following course), taking effect during the change into Double Norwich, thus:<br />
213647589 last six of Stedman<br />
231465798<br />
321647589<br />
312465798<br />
132647589 single called<br />
123465798<br />
214356798 start of Double Norwich<br />
241537689<br />
425136798<br />
452317689<br />
543271698<br />
etc. <br />
Contains 1,080 Stedman, 1,074 Erin, 1,008 Double Norwich Court Bob, 1,007 Plain Bob and 882 Grandsire<br />
4 changes of method, atw<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 1 - Introduction]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 2 - Doubles]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 3 - Minor]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 4 - Triples]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 5 - Major]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 7 - Royal]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 8 - Cinques]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 9 - Maximus]]<br />
[[Category: Composition Reviews]]</div>Anderhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Compositions_of_the_Decade_2000-2009_-_2_-_Doubles&diff=927Compositions of the Decade 2000-2009 - 2 - Doubles2009-12-23T08:14:28Z<p>Ander: /* 1) Jump Stedman - Ander Holroyd - First rung September 2008 */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
===A Review by Philip Earis - continued===<br />
Doubles is the base from which change ringing really developed. It is a paradox that doubles has been both well-studied and much overlooked over the centuries.<br />
<br />
The golden age for doubles was in the 17th Century, when a wide variety of methods were developed. Tintinnalogia (freely available online at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18567) remains a fresh and fascinating read. However, plenty of new ideas continue to abound today.<br />
<br />
===Infinite possibilities===<br />
<br />
Ringing on five is of course based around ringing 120-change extents – small enough to make things manageable, both from a ringing and composing point of view. Indeed, many problems can easily be exhaustively searched using a computer. <br />
<br />
Because of the constraints, the boundaries between doubles compositions and methods can be rather arbitrary – the two concepts become intertwined.<br />
<br />
However, the beauty is that rearranging five bells in different ways still allows massive possibilities. A single grain of sand contains around 7.8*10^19 (78 billion billion) atoms. The entire universe is believed to contain around 10^79 atoms. There are 6.7*10^198 possible ways of arranging the extent on five bells. In other words, there remains an eternity of new methods available. Doubles really retains its ability to interest, delight and surprise.<br />
<br />
===Declining numbers===<br />
<br />
Whilst many ringers' first introduction to change ringing is with doubles, ringers often seem keen to move away from five bell methods as quickly as possible. <br />
<br />
There has been an alarming decline in doubles in recent decades, at least as far as peals are concerned – at the beginning of the decade peal numbers had fairly consistently been averaging about 200 a year (about 3% of all peals rung). By 2008 numbers had dropped to a record low of 123 peals (just 1.8% of the total). A further steep decline looks likely in 2009.<br />
<br />
Even more worrying is that just one of the peals of doubles rung in the whole of 2008 contained methods which weren’t either plain hunt based or Stedman. Now there is nothing wrong with plain doubles methods per se, but this illustrates even more quite how unexplored the field of doubles ringing is.<br />
<br />
It is frustrating to hear people say contemptuously that there's nothing worthwhile that can be done on five bells. This disdain is snobbery borne out of ignorance. A ringer who shuns lower numbers is usually running away from a challenge. It’s easy to formulate a peal of doubles that is vastly more complex than the most “advanced” spliced maximus that is rung.<br />
<br />
A further paradox is that despite declining peal numbers and negative attitudes, the last decade (especially recent years) has seen great innovation resulting in excellent new extents of doubles. Building on new ideas from the 1990s, which for example saw many differential doubles methods rung, doubles is one of the big growth areas in ringing theory.<br />
<br />
Recently, the main thrust of this development has come from Professor Alexander Holroyd, working out of his Vancouver lair. The Professor (one of the few ringers to have a mathematical constant named after him) has used his group theory expertise and innovative experimentation with different symmetries to great effect, as we shall see.<br />
<br />
===Themes over the decade===<br />
<br />
It is interesting how some of the new doubles developments have close parallels with the way early ringing pioneers worked in the 1600s. As in much of ringing, an effective way to finding a solution to a problem is by solving a simpler related problem. <br />
<br />
With doubles, the key to finding interesting extents has often been to produce an in-course half extent - ie all 60 changes obtained only using double-changes (place notations 1, 3 and 5) - and then use a single to obtain the whole extent.<br />
<br />
The most common extents of double rung, accounting for the vast majority of rung doubles, are Grandsire, Stedman, and Plain Bob. All of them elegantly produce extents based on in-course half-extents (with Plain Bob the argument is admittedly a bit more stretched and requires stitching together 10-change in-course blocks). <br />
<br />
As we’ll see, the theme of in-course half extents will appear in my choices below, along with different symmetries and the difficulties in classifying some doubles extents.<br />
<br />
Without further ado, here are my chosen doubles compositions.<br />
<br />
==1) Jump Stedman - Ander Holroyd - First rung September 2008==<br />
<br />
The first “composition of the decade” preserves the in-course half-extent beauty of Stedman, and miraculously converts it to a wonderful plain course extent, which is conceptually extremely satisfying, and great fun to ring<br />
<br />
Just like in conventional Stedman, the method is divided into sixes, which have hunting on the front three bells whist the back two double dodge. Here there are four types of six, rung in the order (quick -> jump down -> slow -> jump up)<br />
<br />
12345<br />
21354<br />
23145<br />
-----<br />
32415<br />
43251<br />
24315<br />
32451<br />
43215<br />
24351<br />
-----<br />
42531<br />
24513<br />
25431<br />
52413<br />
54231<br />
45213<br />
-----<br />
54123<br />
41532<br />
15423<br />
54132<br />
41523<br />
15432<br />
-----<br />
51342<br />
53124<br />
35142<br />
(31524) <br />
<br />
See the previous description on the [[Ringing Theory]] list at: http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/2008-September/002748.html<br />
<br />
And although not a new composition, Robert Johnson’s 2006 proof of how an in-course half extent (like conventional Stedman doubles) can always be expanded into a full extent (with Stedman, the resulting method is Crambo) deserves an honourable mention here.<br />
<br />
==2) Multi-spliced doubles – Philip Saddleton – c2003-2009 (Unrung and unpublished)==<br />
<br />
The past decade has seen progress in multi-splicing more conventional, treble-hunting doubles methods as well. Following his achievements in the realm of spliced minor compositions in the previous decade, Philip Saddleton has turned his hand to doubles. He has managed to include all 220 symmetrical single-hunt plain methods in 42 extents, using 2-lead, 3-lead, 4-lead and combination splices to fit everything in. The extents will be published as part of the new doubles collection – hopefully appearing soon. I hope Philip won’t mind me reproducing one extent here – a combination splice - as a sample of his work.<br />
<br />
2345 96S<br />
2453 94S<br />
2534 88D<br />
3245 158T<br />
3524 148E<br />
4352 44D<br />
5423 125T<br />
5342 127T<br />
5234 117E<br />
4523 55S<br />
4235 48D<br />
3452 150E<br />
2345<br />
<br />
I suspect Matthew Frye deserves credit for giving ideas for some of the extents.<br />
<br />
==3) Banana Doubles - Ander Holroyd (building on Richard Smith) - First rung March 2009==<br />
<br />
Another theme for the decade (on all stages) has been using different kinds of symmetry, rather than just the “conventional” palindromic symmetry. <br />
<br />
One neat form of symmetry is “glide” symmetry, where the changes in the second half-lead are the reverses of those in the first. Whilst this has been used before (Double Eastern Bob Major, first rung in 1752, glides merrily along), it was employed to great effect in my second doubles composition of the decade:<br />
<br />
Banana is a marvellous principle. There are some similarities to Stedman, with six consecutive changes of hunting on three, but the glide symmetry gives it a super fluidity. It combines a superficial simplicity with inspirational delight wonder when rung.<br />
<br />
120 Banana Doubles<br />
Alexander E. Holroyd<br><br />
% 1 % 2 % 3 12345<br />
------------------<br />
- - 54213<br />
------------------<br />
5 part<br><br />
Method: 3.2.3.2.3.4.3.4<br />
bob = 2; hl bob = 4<br />
<br />
The so-called “plain course” of Grandsire doubles can be considered a reverse-engineering of a neat in-course half-extent. In the same way, Banana Doubles can be considered the “pick of the bunch” of the exhaustive list of 101 Doubles methods that Richard Smith published in 2006, with the following properties<br />
<br />
* Principles<br />
* Plain course generates the extent<br />
* No more than two consecutive blows in one place<br />
<br />
Richard’s full list can be seen at: http://ex-parrot.com/~richard/doubles/extents/principles-2-blows.txt - it is a subset of the 52,227,975 methods he found that aren’t restricted to 2 consecutive blows in one place. It was pleasing to see a band ringing 42 different doubles principle plain-course extent methods in a peal in 2008.<br />
<br />
==4) Magic block doubles – Philip Saddleton - September 2008 (unrung)==<br />
<br />
It’s always possible to argue about whether something really is a reverse-engineer of something else. A notable and even more extreme example which highlights the problem of how to classify something was published by Philip Saddleton.<br />
<br />
The father of “magic blocks” spliced, which had a big impact on minor ringing in the decade, PABS has here produced an extent containing seven different overworks and eight different underworks. It’s possibly the ringing equivalent of a bonsai tree.<br />
<br />
5 bells<br />
touch=+3.1,"B1",<br />
&5.3.5,"F1",<br />
&1.5.2,"B2",<br />
&5.3.2,"F2",<br />
&1.34.2,"B3",<br />
&25.3.34,"F3",<br />
&1.3.23,"B4",<br />
&2.23.34,"F4",<br />
&1.5.2,"B2",<br />
&5.3.5,"F1",<br />
&1.3.2,"B1",<br />
&5.23.5,"F5",<br />
&1.34.23,"B5",<br />
&5.23.5,"F5",<br />
&1.3.2,"B1",<br />
&5.3.34,"F6",<br />
&4.5.23,"B6",<br />
&5.3.2,"F2",<br />
&4.5.23,"B6",<br />
&2.3.5,"F7",<br />
&4.3.23,"B7",<br />
&2.3.5,"F7",<br />
&4.5.23,"B6",<br />
&5.23.34,"F8",<br />
+1.3.2,"B1"<br />
<br />
==5) Hybrid doubles (15 change divisions) – Ander Holroyd – November 2008==<br />
<br />
Few methods have been rung with an odd number of changes per division. Red Square Hybrid Doubles puts Ander’s group theory knowledge to innovative use, dividing the extent into 8 leads of 15 changes (with the treble of course ringing 3 blows in each place per lead) that form a group. <br />
<br />
+125.145.3.123.1.345.125.1.345.123.1.3.125.145.3<br><br />
Extent: pppsppps; single = 1 for last 145<br />
<br />
http://www.bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/2008-November/002756.html<br />
<br />
==6) In-course 120 – Andrew Johnson – October 2006==<br />
<br />
Responding to a challenge on the [[Ringing Theory]] list, Andrew produced a very neat example of an in-course 120 of doubles, where each row occurs once at handstroke and backstroke.<br />
<br />
+3.1.3.5.1.3.5.1.3.5.3.1.3.1.3.5.1.3.5.1.3.5.3.5<br />
<br />
A 240 containing each row twice can trivially be obtained with a pair of singles.<br />
<br />
==7) Dixonoid doubles – Philip Earis and Andrew Tibbetts – Autumn 2001==<br />
<br />
Continuing the theme of things being difficulty to classify, the long established idea of “dixonoids” or rule based constructions made an appearance in the early years of the decade. Here, the place notation is defined “on the fly” based on which bells are leading. In the plain bob version, all bells plain hunt, with 2nds made when the treble leads (as in bob doubles), but with 4ths additionally made at the backstroke whenever 2 or 4 lead:<br />
<br />
120 Dixon's Bob Doubles<br><br />
2345<br />
- 5342 1<br />
- 4235 2<br />
- 4352 3<br />
- 5432 2<br />
- 3425 2<br />
- 2345 2<br><br />
- = 145 at treble’s backstroke lead<br />
<br />
In the Grandsire version, a 240 containing each row once at each stroke, the bells plain hunt, with thirds made the handstroke after the treble leads (as in normal Grandsire), and again with 2nds made when the treble leads (as in bob doubles), but with 4ths additionally made at the backstroke whenever 2 or 4 lead:<br />
<br />
240 Dixon's Grandsire Doubles<br><br />
2345<br />
s 4325 1<br />
s 3425 6<br />
s 2354 1<br />
s 3254 6<br />
s 3524 3<br />
s 5324 6<br />
p 2345<br><br />
s=123 at treble’s backstroke lead only <br />
<br />
==8) Ocean Finance Doubles – Ander Holroyd – First rung March 2008==<br />
<br />
+3.5.123.1.3.123<br><br />
Extent: TppTppTppTppTpAppppA<br><br />
T = 345 (instead of 123) at division end A = 145 (instead of 123) at division end<br />
<br />
This is a clever asymmetric principle with six changes per division. Extents usually consist of an assembly of mutually true courses. This one doesn't, relying instead on a composition consisting of two distinct blocks. The blocks permute in the same order, neatly providing the complementary rows for their analogue so the extent is obtained.<br />
<br />
Reviewing the selected compositions above, it does seem to have been a bit of a CUG-fest. This is not intentional – please do tell me what I’ve missed.<br />
<br />
Next: [[Compositions of the Decade 3 - Minor|Compositions of the Decade 3 - A Minor Earthquake...]]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 1 - Introduction]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 3 - Minor]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 4 - Triples]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 5 - Major]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 6 - Caters]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 7 - Royal]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 8 - Cinques]]<br />
*[[Compositions of the Decade 9 - Maximus]]<br />
[[Category: Composition Reviews]]</div>Ander